Carter v. Kubler’s Empirical Analysis
320 U.S. 243 · 1943
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 7 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2014 · most notably Greene v. McElroy (1959), 134 S. Ct. 2165 - Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (2014)
29 federal appellate · 7 district · 17 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedCarter v. Kubler (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on John Hancock Mut Life Ins Co v. Bartels · Borchard v. California Bank · Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. v. Magrath Oil Co. · Rait v. Federal Land Bank
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Unless otherwise directed in the order of reference the report of a referee * * * shall set forth his findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the judge shall accept his findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. The judge after hearing may adopt the report or may modify it or may reject it in whole or in part or may receive further evidence or may recommit it with instructions.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Moreover, once a hearing has been ordered [bankruptcy act] § 75 (s) (3) (49 Stat. at L. 944 [11 XJSCA, § 203 (s) (3)]) necessarily guarantees that it shall be a fair and full hearing. The basic elements of such a hearing include the right of each party to be apprized of all the evidence upon which a factual adjudication rests, plus the right to examine, explain or rebut all such evidence. Tested by that standard, the personal investigation by the conciliation commissioner cannot be justified. It was apparently made without petitioner’s knowledge or consent and no opportunity was accorded petitioner to examine or rebut the evidence obtained in the course of such investigation. The use of this evidence was therefore inconsistent with the right to a fair and full hearing. Moser v. Mortgage Guarantee Co. (C. C. A.), 123 Fed. (2d) 423; 4 Wigmore on Evidence (3d Ed.), § 1169.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.